IN THE COMMENTS: AllenS wrote: "Nonsense, it was a wake up call." Now, I was going to use a "wake-up call" wisecrack in the original post. Why did I reject it? Because it would signal that women's violence against men isn't really dangerous, isn't really a crime. It would say that when a woman has a righteous reason to be angry at her man, what would otherwise be a crime is not a crime. Think about how ugly it is to hit someone with a golf club while he is asleep. Did she know it was an Ambien-induced sleep — from which it will be very difficult to wake up and defend himself? How hard a swing did she take at him? It seems it was scary enough to make him run out of the house and attempt to drive — quickly — when he was in no condition to drive.

[T]o use a weapon to whack him and run him out to the car to escape, if this is what really happened, is not the way to resolve a problem like this, nor should it be legal for a male or female to beat their spouse with a weapon for cheating. It is very dangerous in this case, because, as a man, Woods probably had no other recourse than to get in the car and get away, or face being put in jail for defending himself.

At some point y'all are going to learn that lying and deception - deliberately causing someone to misread the reality around them - is a punishable offense. The way I see NewAge moving our culture, the trend is to punish anyone who's good and let the scum off the hook. I say it's the good people who, once they discover how feckless and infantile the rest of you are, must do whatever they need to, to rectify a situation on their own.

One Monday after Halloween I arrived home at my old apartment to find a body being wheeled out to be taken to the morgue. The couple in the apartment across the hall had had a fight and the woman whacked her boyfriend with a poker, killing him. She then tried to kill herself with a knife. It was all a bloody mess.

If a man were to enter his bedroom while his (cheating) wife were asleep and hit her as hard as he could, once, with a closed fist, he would be arrested, charged with a cornucopia of crimes, and jailed. This would be the correct outcome.

Woods's wife used a deadly weapon* in a similar situation. She should be charged as well.

Had she attacked him when he was awake and able to defend himself, I would have more sympathy for her. (Even though I would not have much sympathy for a man in that situation; sue me.) But sucker-punching him with a deadly weapon is, and should be, a felony.

* I guarantee that a golf club would be so deemed if it were used as a weapon in any other context

Professor, I'm surprised at you. It's been perfectly legal for a wife to murder her husband for any number of years. All she has to do is allege a pattern of physical abuse and then - per precedent - she doesn't even have to prove self-defense at the time of the incident.

Just read your comment and I think you're letting the sex of the attacker get in the way of you seeing the crime - which is what Tiger did. This is about deception and, clearly, Newagers have no problem with that. It's only being exposed, attacked, taken down, that bothers them.

Most people would've let Tiger get away with murder, merely because he has money a good golf swing, and that's more sickening than him getting whacked in his sleep for being scum.

That said, when a wife catches you screwing everything in a skirt--there is a good likihood that you will get wacked pretty hard by a five iron. And provided she does only that and does not go for the kill, I would vote to acquit!

And I would not support any violence by a man in the opposite situation. Even if he is being cheated on, a real man cannot use violence against his spouse. At least not against the wife (the other partner may deserve a good beating). I suppose that makes me sexist, but what the hell, that is how I swing.

Merry Christmas. Thanks for bringing this story up Ann on Christmas morning. I am only on the computer because the kids are playing with their stuff and my wife is passed out on the couch from being Santa's helper last night with preparations (we got about 3 hours of sleep before the kids decided to get up early).

It's a wake-up call only in the figurative sense. She could have put him to sleep permanently.

Big Mike said...

Professor, I'm surprised at you. It's been perfectly legal for a wife to murder her husband for any number of years. All she has to do is allege a pattern of physical abuse and then - per precedent - she doesn't even have to prove self-defense at the time of the incident.

Not so much legal, I would guess, as excused. Not unlike the old "unwritten law" about catching your spouse in flagrante delicto.

I guess just severing his penis with a carving knife, driving several miles from home and then dropping it out the window on the side of the interstate wasn't an option?

Considering what Nordegren COULD HAVE done to Tiger -- there's precedent, after all -- (and what she'll probably do to him in a divorce trial), I'd say he's probably gotten off pretty easy to this point.

Love is a horrible debilitating condition. If not for this affliction, I'm sure she would have realized how wonderful it was going to be to be rich, and free of his cheating ass. She should not have resorted to violence, but rather celebration.

Does their marriage have any real chance now, really?

It would take two exceptional people to get over this and be in love again, two very exceptional people.

Love and marriage is a scary proposition for average characters, especially if they have above average anything else.

When someone deliberately deceives another about the nature of their reality, I don't think you can find them guilty of behaving unrealistically - the deceiver automatically threw threw a wrench in that possibility with their actions.

"I was going to ask if anyone here went through a similar experience, that is, waking up to a beating."

Oh yea, I was raised in foster homes, and all manner of things - justified and unjustified - happens in there. I got beat up in my sleep because I was new, and the biggest kid felt threatened by me, letting me know who was in charge.

A bunch of black kids who had arrived before I did formed a gang and beat the shit out of him for it while making me watch. Their motivation was racial, also letting me know who was in charge.

Well this is all unconfirmed. It is liable that she reacted with some level of rage and/or violence and he tried to flee in an impaired state, but we'll probably never know exactly.

My hunch is she was not having an "Oh my god I just found out you cheated on me!" moment, but a "That's the last straw!!!" moment.That is, I assume she's known about his philandering and he's promised to quite several times and hasn't.

I also wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't a routine discovery of adultery but something else that's been kept out of the nice, like a pregnancy or STD or something like that.

I'm also getting the idea that he has some kind of affective or neurological disorder. I've never paid attention to him before but recently all kinds of things said by people who've known him indicate a very strange psyche.

She's supposedly in Sweden for the holidays. If she were to expect any chance of legal liability, then we ought to expect her not to return.

Honestly, the right of fathers / husband / men are not as far along in Scandinavian counties as they are here. It is unlikely that this would be considered a crime there, and since that's where she is and that's where the children are, that's the only jurisdiction that matters.

She wants leverage, boffo! She takes the kids to Sweden, is gonna stay there, and if Tiger still wants to be a Daddy then he is going to have to PAY UP!

No that's the rumor. Moreover, what the fuck does whack mean in this context and since when does whack in any context constitute attempted murder. This is insane.

I once smacked my wife when she was asleep and I rolled over. Good God, it was spousal abuse, attempted murder! And what about the time, I needed to wake and had to really shake her to wake her up. Abuse! Murder!

Will you get some perspective?

(And where does this so-called report come from? Woods? What did he say? How would he know?)

If the claim is true, this is not a case of a woman angrily confronting a man and losing control. It is a calculated, premeditated attack by the assailant, using a deadly weapon to inflict injury on the victim when he was helpless.

Merely menacing someone with a deadly weapon (and deadly weapon basically means whatever the DA says) is enough to support an assault with a deadly weapon charge. If she hit him, even ineffectively, it's battery with a DW. If she really clocked him, it's arguably attempted homicide.

The standards applied should be the same regardless of the sex / status of the perp. But if the swinger in this case had been an uneducated, non-affluent young male, he'd be facing a felony charge and probably end up taking a crappy misdemeanor deal.

However, I tend to agree with the person (Freeman?) who said a punch or scratch in this case would probably not be a big deal, at least not the first time. Still a crime, but a no-file by the DA for a woman; a man would face charges regardless.

I wonder what would happen if Obama's takeovers extend to the criminal defense system, i.e. everyone gets the same level of representation (public defender or appointed counsel earning relatively low rates).

Freeman Hunt: But smacking a sleeping person with a club... don't know about that. That does sound like attempted murder.

I don't disagree with Althouse's definition. I disagree with her underlying assumption, that if it is attempted murder it must be proscribed by the state.

I think Althouse is being a principled liberal in her stance that men and women must be treated equally by the law, but I'm interested in something different all together.

I would look more favorably on Nordegren if she she attacked her husband as soon as she heard about this, be he awake or asleep. I'm looking for justifiable passion and that means the less premeditation the better.

I think there is a couple of competing issues, social, criminal and otherwise.

Firstly, violence against men by women isn't taken seriously and should be taken seriously.

The biggest reason it's usually not taken seriously is that men are generally much bigger than women. We can pretend this isn't true, but we lie to ourselves.

My karate instructor didn't even tell the *men* to enter a stand up, toe-to-toe fight with anyone. He certainly did not teach the women that they ought to care anything about a "fair" fight. Yes, of course, if there are two men one is taller and stronger than the other as well, but between a man and a woman the physical disparity is stark. It might be politically correct to pretend this isn't true, but we delude ourselves.

Still, violence by women against men should be taken very seriously, certainly as seriously as violence of men against women. Women can be and are abusive both physically and emotionally. They can be chronically abusive.

Now, on the other side of this is our current insistence that there is no such thing as "fighting words" or no such thing as "deserving" to be hit. We fetishize physical violence as some special category of ultimate transgression. This means a few things to our culture and society that are not good. It means that those who attack *verbally* think they are virtuous and they are invariably surprised when they receive a normal human response (Perez Hilton anyone? How about Buzz Aldrin and that Moon Truther?) to provocation.

It also means that our traditional protectors, who employ violence, are vilified. There is no category for many people for those who employ violence virtuously. Soldiers are, therefore, dangerous persons trained to kill and conditioned against normal sensibilities. Being "pro-soldier" or "pro-troop" for people who think this way means portraying them as victims and no longer responsible for themselves. Not their fault.

Any excuse to take thought and reason out of the equation. It helps reinforce the idea that such things are generally beneath your consideration.

So Tiger Woods is a he-whore. So what? He cheated on his wife. With probably at least ten women. Terrible. Horrible. I get it.

What I also get is that the rage-reaction is an admission of feeling inferior -- for being boring! Which many women, and particularly women in America, are. There is a split, and that's the problem. The relationships recognized in marriage are supposed to define stability, and that's a good thing. But people don't seem to pick on the fact that women aren't generally incentivized to be compelling. And failing that, men and women go on to reduce each other to base assets: He financial, she sexual. Hence, a woman's fear of not being wanted. But this Nordren (or whatever) person wasn't a pornstar and Woods probably never considered the significance of knowing someone who's actually compelling in a way that even a pornstar (or ten of them) isn't. It can make all the difference in the world.

But I digress. Enough with the high-minded analysis of what's really wrong with society in this picture. May the Jerry Springer fans rage on, and combine their love of spectacle with the illusion of engaging sober analysis. Return to your assigned seats in the coliseum. Refreshments will soon be served.

So how does this apply to the Woods? Does repeated infidelity by either spouse constitute an equivalent to "fighting words"?

After all, it's not at all as though Tiger's transgressions were the equivalent of burning the beans or folding the laundry wrong.

Can we separate a pattern of abusive or violent behavior and a one time violent reaction to provocation?

To say "but he was sleeping" might make him helpless but it does not mean that she was emotionally cool. The maddest I've ever been at my husband (for entirely ordinary reasons) was when he ignored how upset I was and *went to sleep*. How more obvious can a person be that what is tearing you up bothers him not at all? I can easily see a situation where Erin confronts him when he gets home or the kids are finally asleep and he just... tunes her out. Taking Ambien just makes it worse. It's ignoring with *intent* to ignore and dismiss.

I think it's actually aggressive behavior. And if that's the case it leaves Erin awake with no company but her hurt and betrayal and unable to sleep at all. If bawling loudly doesn't wake him and banging a cupboard door doesn't wake him... he can hardly ignore her if she's got a golf club can he.

Saying she has other avenues to pursue, setting aside the heat of the moment, most of those are taken away as well, aren't they? She can divorce him, but that exposes her to even more shame and ridicule. Seriously, how many times did we hear the reasons he wasn't responsible for being a skank? And the court will be unlikely to identify her as the wronged party. Neither significant public shame nor legal censure is likely to fall on Tiger.

So she gets out of the marriage and that's all she gets for it. There will be no real context to it all that she had a *right* to expect fidelity, and probably should have made a better choice, how could she not have *known*, etc., etc., In a lot of ways she ends up with any public shame involved, because she chose him. Women are expected to be picky... Men are not.

My mother (who is more accomplished, talented, outspoken and ethical - as a combination of traits - than any woman I've known) would vomit if she knew in detail of half the women I've dated and their expectations, within the context of how very little they had to offer as people. Or even cared to offer. It's downright astonishing.

Women will not be seen as equal to men in this country until they value and focus on the idea of a common humanity as a prerequisite to anything that can (somehow) be offered by a gender in particular.

The seriousness of the hurt done to a faithful spouse by an adultery episode makes it rank up there with murder on the Ten Alltime Sins List. To do it all over the world with not only favored Courtesans but also any waitresses that look eligible is an event of total rejection that makes intense anger and a desire to hurt the betyaying spouse the only sane reaction.

My mother (who is more accomplished, talented, outspoken and ethical - as a combination of traits - than any woman I've known) would vomit if she knew in detail of half the women I've dated and their expectations, within the context of how very little they had to offer as people. Or even cared to offer. It's downright astonishing.

To do it all over the world with not only favored Courtesans but also any waitresses that look eligible is an event of total rejection that makes intense anger and a desire to hurt the betyaying spouse the only sane reaction.

The alternative is that Woods could have simply had a fair (and attainable) model of what constitutes a suitably compelling, and comprehensive, sense of a good mate. And gone for it.

As it stands, the most eligible bachelor in America settled on Angelina Jolie, who is downright nuts. I believe that the rumors she has/had BPD are true. But hey, that's the standard for a great mate in the minds of American men. Pathetic.

Before that, it was Marilyn Monroe. Another borderline personality. And then we have Princess Diana. The rumors are there in that case too.

How is this even about me? People are infinite in what they are drawn to and the reasons they are drawn to those things. The issue comes down to a model of a compelling wife in America, as you realized.

No one is a loser simply because of who they are drawn to (especially in the short term) and if you don't get that then you are arguing against your own point. There are traits that matter in the short term and traits that matter in the long run. There are traits that make for stability and traits that make for attraction. The problem is that American women don't generally integrate those things as well as they should be expected to. Hence, the perceived tension on the part of American men.

I've dated on the basis of every variety of trait. Nothing wrong with wanting to explore what people have to offer and having an open mind about it. The problem is that women sense that same tension between domesticity and being sexy (attractive) that everyone complains is only exhibited in "typical" male behavior. Between settling down, raising a family, and having a career. Once they resolve that conundrum (which is essentially one of perception, IMO), then things will become a bit less abnormal. And more fun.

So no, there's nothing wrong with going after the brain, who turns out to be boring, or the fun one, who turns out to be crazy. Again, it's women who have to resolve these false dichotomies. Catering to roles as if they should be polar extremities is what makes each role problematic. People should embrace the internal diversity of who they are first.

Ritmo...The law successfully supresses violence because it and the State offers to do a measured amount of damage back to the perpetrator and condemns him/her for the wounded person's benefit. When the law refuses to recognise an offense and protects the perpetrator more than his victims, then the victim may seek self help violence to avert a total anihilation. The law of the frontiere mandating a compensatory violent act made more sense than the current legal system whenever it fails to condemn the harm done to the innocent and provide a punishment to the always getting away with it William Zantzinger types. God says he curses men for some sins as a way to restrain them and protect the innocent.

My mom has an open mind and is accepting of people as well, until they turn out to wrong her. So no, I don't think she would be appalled by people in my dating history (and stop with this superiority complex. Everyone's dated people they didn't end up liking much at all). But after explaining a few behaviors that ultimately became evident, she definitely would have been.

What's with the controversy here? Everyone knows that women are more likely to cover up who they are and what they really want, to be more coy about it, less straightforward. It all fits in with what you said.

The article didn't say whether Elin aimed at the head, how hard she hit him, or what kind of club was used. If she took a full swing at his head with a wood, and managed to connect, that would have hurt him permanently, I think.

If she just used a putter and hit on the butt, he would not have been seriously injured.

So we need to know more specifics.

I don't think she could have seriously injured him unless it was a head shot delivered via a foiur or five wood (he probably has titanium heads, which are fairly light) and whether she used all her force with an intention to kill him.

More details needed.

Personally, I think there should be such a thing as a justifiable homicide in cases of serial adultery such as this one. But the law is on the side of the perp since the 1960s.

Now he's a "sex addict" and we have to treat him with mothering care, and not judge. Judging itself is way too Puritanical.

And probably we shouldn't judge her, either. She was just trying to give him a lobotomy, which she figured he needed. And God gave her the summons to perpetrate the operation, so everything's ok.

Also, I met more people I didn't like (in this context) on the East coast, so maybe there's a geographical issue to resolve. As boring as the Midwest is, I think I had many fewer issues to raise about the people I dated there. In Chicago, etc. It probably is a geographical/cultural thing. As I've said all along.

It's funny. As many people as there are in New York, the complaints they have about the dating scene are enormous!

I think it comes down to being surrounded by so many people that each one focuses less on themselves when it comes to the important things and more as an external "image".

I've been reading about this somewhere, a study recently that said women in smaller towns worry less about being attractive than women in big cities. Speculation is that people in smaller towns care more about each other, the value they have to offer by how they can be helpful to each other than by a stricter definition of "status".

Anyway, that's too many posts on this trifle. Time for you to start speculating again, Synova. I've said my peace, and it's not really a definition of who I am. Just about one thing I've noticed over a few years that happen to bug me and that I suspect fall into a larger, societal criticism. Now you take your turn with this! I'm done.

I mean come on, did she turn him into Rainman or something? She did not leave him on the carpet like some baby harp seal on the ice, did she? She must not have hit him so hard. He deserved a few wacks. Get over it.

I recognize we have to make assault a crime, but we have to have the common sense to recognize that not all assaults should be treated as a crime.

Personally, I think there should be such a thing as a justifiable homicide in cases of serial adultery such as this one. But the law is on the side of the perp since the 1960s.

Homicide is a bit much to condone for infidelity (especially given people's morals now-a-days), but what you are of course refering to is the unwritten "he just needed killin'" defense which often the basis of jury nulification.

As an American male compelled to defend the status quo, I can see why you'd take that stand. But if I'm not mistaken, Diana's most recent biographer was British, and in a position to understand what was or was not poor treatment by the royals and how that would have overshadowed any of Diana's personal demons.

Again, this is to be expected, so your explanation doesn't surprise me. Women are passive, or reactive. Men are proactive. I get the point. Not that it should have to be that way. Not that it isn't problematic to think that way.

Having been in the same situation as Elin (cheated upon spouse) I can sympathize but have words of warning.

You go through all sorts of stages of rage and grieving. At one point I seriously thought about shooting my ex to be. Even to the point of aiming the loaded gun directly at his temple. Fortunately.....my analytical side kicked in and I realized that going to jail for killing the piece of shit just wasn't worth it.

It would have been very easy to do in the heat of the moment. THEN.....Think what the ramifications would be. In one second...pulling the trigger or swinging the weapon/golf club. You can lose your child/children, freedom and everything else that you value possibly for the rest of your life. And for what? A momentary surge of revenge.

In those emotional minutes, you live completely in the moment and cannot think ahead.

I think this is probably what happened in Elin's case and I imagine she regrets her loss of control.

As it turns out 19 years later and looking back in retrospect, learning the truth, however painful it was, was the very best thing that ever ever happened to me. I am free of that horrible relationship and happier than I have ever been and getting ready to celebrate my 16 wedding anniversary.

"What's with the controversy here? Everyone knows that women are more likely to cover up who they are and what they really want, to be more coy about it, less straightforward. It all fits in with what you said."

"Everyone knows that women are" what? Dear God, Ritmo. I'm about as anti-feminist as they come but that statement is the biggest bunch of horseshit. Women *and* men lie to themselves and to each other, particularly during courtship, and women no more than men! Men *might*, and I say "might" reservedly, be more straight forward with other men. They are lying sacks of shit when it comes to women.

I don't blame them for that because they *think* they are telling the truth!

Or are you REALLY suggesting that dear Tiger explained to Elin ahead of time that he intended to live his life as a man-whore while the perfect mother... passing on her beautiful genes and nanny honed mothering skills to his offspring... stayed at home and *did* that?

"Homicide is a bit much to condone for infidelity (especially given people's morals now-a-days),..."

Fuck "people's morals now-a-days", adultery can drive anybody nuts. What did Chris Rock say about O.J.? "I'm not sayin' he shoulda done it (shit-eating grin) but I understand. And then he lays out a laundry list of reasons that anyone could comprehend for why it happened. Adultery can put a person in a personal cauldron. Their dignity may be seriously damaged for the first time. The trust issues, alone, can be huge.

I don't think I'm justifying violence by saying I get that. I'm divorced, and from a "pretty rough part part of town", and you can bet I considered everything. Had everything offered to me. But I didn't go there. But don't think I wasn't tempted, either. If some of y'all can understand how one spouse will disrespect the other so thoroughly, well I can understand how that spouse can wind up dead. "People's morals now-a-days" are to treat others as napkins if you can get away with it, and the courts are happy to help. Once that message sinks in (and a whole lot of other ones, rushing at you all at once) I'm telling you - for a man or woman - all bets are off.

And your milage may vary. I'm not justifying anything. Each situation is different. But that's no reason to deny what people have to deal with when caught in it. Some people stay, some walk straight to a lawyer, some become basket cases, and some explode - all perfectly understandable, to me anyway.

One big difference about me now, than the man I was before, is if I see a guy punch a woman I don't get involved, because I can no longer pretend to have any idea about if she deserved it or not.

I thought we were having a general discussion. I never suggested that Woods' attempted battery (or worse) at the hands of his Swedish wife followed his breaking the news to her about the affairs, that he wasn't deceptive. I don't know where you got that from.

If you really think that women are as assertive and straightforward about what they want as men are, I don't know what to say. There is a difference between lying and being coy, subtle, PASSIVE, speaking in clues, believing people should be able to read your mind to "get" who you are and what you want rather than being as sincere as possible, etc., etc., etc. I was going to suggest doing a GOOGLE search with the terms "men", "women", and "assertive". But if you think this has to do more with lying than with being obvious, then you're not getting the point anyway.

The most obvious example is the way a woman will not take responsibility for wanting to have sex with a man. If he invites her upstairs for some other purpose, i.e. "to look at his paintings", then she has the plausible deniability of a reason for being in that situation. She is no longer responsible for whether or not they had sex. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me. But as I understand it, that's how it works.

If you still persist in disagreeing with me, then just accept that you are not typical (not a bad thing), either in your sexual behavior or in your willingness to clearly assert what it is that you want at every stage of a relationship.

You people be crazy with wanting blood for this. Next to cutting someone off in traffic, is there any more common transgression than adultery?

This is simply a couple that made bad choices. She in picking him and him in getting married at all. He then simply played out the inevitable. I certainly don't know them, but it appears that there was no chance for this marriage to succeed from the start. I doubt his nature was not evident in advance, and she made a mistake. He either was stupid enough to think he would be faithful or dumb enough to think he could get away with it. Either way, it's just human failing that happens every day and eventually to a large percentage of marriages.

No body was evil here, just foolish and weak. I prefer we save our outrage for people who really do things worthy of physical punishment. I don't even think he should loose much money over it, beyond any breaches of written contracts.

It seems people here are venting their anger over past or feared future similar violations on their own trust.

When people violate your trust, it's a terrible personal hurt, but not beyond a strong person's ability to keep it in perspective and deal. Life is too short and purposeless for such anger.

Get mad, get hurt, get over it, get the wisdom and take it with you as you get on with life.

Then again it's just a blog, so I don't really think your all that pissed anyway.

I recognize we have to make assault a crime, but we have to have the common sense to recognize that not all assaults should be treated as a crime.

Yes. I really don’t think the law should get involved until you get to a certain level of assault. Maybe to the point where something is broken, or you need to go to the hospital. There should be some discretion here. I am with you, in that I doubt she hit him in a way that was likely to cause serious injury. Now, if she had taken the club and wacked him hard in the head with the heaviest part, maybe she should go to jail, but he doesn’t seem to have any major injuries so I would give this one a pass. I would say if a man found out his wife was cheating in a similar manner, even though it’s not nice (and what Elin did was not nice), I would understand if he slapped or hit her in the heat of the moment. I don’t think we should prosecute that sort of thing (or one provoked punch in a bar fight).

Men *might*, and I say "might" reservedly, be more straight forward with other men. They are lying sacks of shit when it comes to women.

Yes. And then men think women have poor taste, and women think the same about the men who are sleeping with someone they know to be a manipulative, mean person. It happens all the time on both sides..

What did Chris Rock say about O.J.? "I'm not sayin' he shoulda done it (shit-eating grin) but I understand.

Nonsense. Sorry. O.J. was divorced from Nicole when he killed her. No excuse.

Plus my wife saw O.J. in action on a flight from NYC to Buffalo a few years before those events. He was hitting on the flight attendants, and when they rejected him, loudly told everyone on the plane what was wrong with them physically and why he would not sleep with them. Was he drunk, perhaps. But he was still a pig and I doubt it was the first time he did something like that.

If you really think that women are as assertive and straightforward about what they want as men are, I don't know what to say. There is a difference between lying and being coy, subtle, PASSIVE, speaking in clues, believing people should be able to read your mind to "get" who you are and what you want rather than being as sincere as possible, etc., etc., etc

@ Ritmo. You are generalizing/stereotyping somewhat. I think it depends on the man or the woman as to who is more straight forward or coy in the relationship. Many women can be just as open as men in what they want. Just because you haven't met them doesn't mean that they don't exist.

My first husband always tried to speak in riddles, as if I should be able to read his mind. Always trying to keep me off balance and play stupid mind games. Most of the time I was... WTF??? What are you trying to say or imply??

I've been told by many people that I'm a pretty straightforward person. (Sometimes to the point of being rather blunt....mild aspergers) My current husband is also a what you see is what you get kind of person, a what you say is what you mean, no coy mind games. This is why we get along so well.

Life is so much simpler when you aren't playing stupid psychological games and keeping score. There is also no confusion about the consequences on either side if one of us were to break our vows.

Oh I have! And those experiences allowed me to realize just how rare they are - (at least when combined with someone that you can click with and share enough core values/interests with to make it really worth it).

Sorry to hear about the whole messy experience regarding your first husband.

Life is so much simpler when you aren't playing stupid psychological games and keeping score.

I think a lot of problems (at least when it comes to accusations of deception, or the infinitely less ominous vice of vagueness) come down to people not fully understanding what they want. But few people are so self-aware as to both understand themselves inside and out and how anyone else might happily and completely fall into that picture while being just as satisfied and self-aware.

If he invites her upstairs for some other purpose, i.e. "to look at his paintings", then she has the plausible deniability of a reason for being in that situation. She is no longer responsible for whether or not they had sex.

Huh? Are you talking about date rape or people consensually having sex? If the latter, what do you mean "she is no longer responsible?" I don't get it.

When people violate your trust, it's a terrible personal hurt, but not beyond a strong person's ability to keep it in perspective and deal. Life is too short and purposeless for such anger.

I take it you don't have children? Obviously people do get over adultery, but you seem to be characterizing it as not a huge deal. (I apologize if I'm misreading you.) Tiger's being a he-whore is breaking up his family. That's huge.

Look around. It happens all the time. Families break up because one person acts like an idiot or decides that commitments don't mean so much and walks. Sometimes it ruins people's lives. And when children are involved, the effects ripple on forever.

This whole story (that Elin hit him while asleep) sounds like something that Tiger's lawyers would put out to generate him some sympathy. It takes a lot of arrogance to cheat on your wife in such a flagrant way. And arrogant people tend to get even more arrogant, and meaner, when things aren't going their way. Seems like they're now trying to shift blame to Elin, and it just doesn't cut it.

There are real cases everyday where a man or a woman is faithful and loves their spouse, but the spouse insists on a promiscuous lifestyle that destroys every good thing they have and or ever could have. Is it a European way of looking at marriage as different from and compatible with the sexual hunting of strangers for sport? Whatever the "cause", it shows a terrible assumption that the cheater is entitled to everything and recognises no duties. Society needs to condemn that conduct and not laugh it off as if its a normal fun thing all enjoy. This is a deadly serious business.

Especially if she wants a divorce and to keep the kids with full custody.

I don't know if it's still true, but a decade or so ago, in both Sweden and Norway, if one spouse was a local citizen and the other was not, courts would give the citizen custody almost without question.

Even if the spouse fled from the US with the kids in violation of custody orders. Happened to friends of people I knew. It was considered by the courts there to be in the best interest of the child to be Swedish or Norwegian, as the case may be, and to be brought up there.

I don't believe she did this. Think about it. If she did hit him while he was asleep, he wouldn't have made it to the Escalade. A golf club would have knocked him out cold. I do think she hit him, but he wasn't asleep.

And never mind the equality of law, I fully support her smacking him around. He deserves that and more.

How do we know it's not disinformation. Since the only people who would know are Tiger and Elin, and Tiger probably didn't comment directly, maybe one of Tiger's team was the source for the report. The same team who has been enshrining his reputation for years while he frolicked around behind the scenes, doing whatever debauched thing he wanted. They have a pattern of lying.

Meanwhile we all know she'll be suing for the big bucks and wants full custody in Sweden, so putting out info like this is precisely in Tiger's interest, without regard for the truth. In fact, which is in accord with his entire career, doing what he wants without regard for the truth.

Why believe this until it is asserted more forcefully than just "rumor has it"?

Ann is correct. How anyone can be so casual about a criminal attack is beyond me. Because it was infidelity? This makes violence against the cheater okay? Huh?

I have read through all of the thread and I am disgusted by many of the comments about the scope/scale of violence committed.

Way too much blood-lust because of Tiger being a cheat. 'Should of hit him more.' 'It was a wake-up.' 'She's a girl--she couldn't swing the club that hard.' 'Elin should have waited until he was awake and then it would have been okay.'

Here is a little information of the physics of swinging a golf club:

From: Haake, Steve. "The Physics of Golf." Science Spectra. Number 13 (1997). "The normal force rises to approximately 2,000 lbs. (9 kN) during the half-millisecond of impact."

This 2000 Lbs force is being delivered in an average area of ~5 square inches. If you don't think this is a merciless blow try this simple experiment: Have a friend swing a golf club, and you hold out your hand and try to catch/stop it. Try with either end being swung. Yeah.... I didn't think so.

And of course someone had to trot out the old knee-slapper of funny spousal abuse, Loraine Bobbit. Oh man, this one always slays the crowd. So how 'funny' is it to contemplate severing a woman's breasts over marital infidelity. Oh boy, I bet Jay, Conan, and Letterman's writers would have a comedy field-day--NOT. Because it isn't funny.

Elin's not looking for custody. She's looking for more money! And, given that she smashed Tiger's front teeth, HE still decided not to press charges.

Perhaps, the lawyers are working backstage? He wasn't at his sister-in-law's recent s'vedish wedding. He wasn't at Elin's side when she birthed her son, by C Section, 10 months ago. And, he wasn't at his daughter's Baptism.

Wood's biggest mistake was to think the lie would survive. That he was attacked by a crazed Elin? Sure.

michael: How anyone can be so casual about a criminal attack is beyond me. Because it was infidelity? This makes violence against the cheater okay? Huh?

If cheating wasn't dangerous then marriage certificates would be nothing more than expensive pieces of toilet paper. I'm sure Tiger Woods "got off" every time he cheated on his wife knowing how dangerous it could be. He made choices and he should have to deal with the consequences, without complaints.

A violent attack on a helpless person (a man in a drugged sleep certainly qualifies as helpless) is no matter for levity. This is true even if the victim is as much of a jerk as popular opinion holds Tiger to be.

My sympathies go to Althouse this time. As I know from my own experience, it's genuinely depressing to see proof positive that, as reward for the work and sheer number of hours you sweat over a blog, you are inflicted with readers (or, at least, commenters) who are blatant assholes.

"A violent attack on a helpless person (a man in a drugged sleep certainly qualifies as helpless) is no matter for levity. This is true even if the victim is as much of a jerk as popular opinion holds Tiger to be."

I ain't joking: you may be one of those people who thinks of people as interchangable cogs in your, oh, so wonderful life of whatever you want, but to discover that you're that cog can be devestating - especially when it first hits you that the person you've devoted yourself to thinks so little of you. Elin had this guy's children, had him inside her, was known the world over as "Mrs. Tiger Woods". I may not know what happened - none of us do - but the possiblities are endless and, as far as I'm concerned, almost any form of temporary madness is completely understandable.

It's too easy to say "learn from it and (NewAge catchphrase here:) 'move on' - only sociopaths think that's always possible. My divorce twisted my insides in ways nothing else ever had - uncontrolable rolling waves of emotion that could knock me to my knees or send me into a violent fury unlike anything I'd ever encountered in a mere angry fight with some dude that pissed me off. There's just no comparison, and, if you can't recognize that, I seriously wonder if there's not something wrong with you. "Romeo and Juliet" is a famous story about the lengths love will drive people. Hendrix wrote "Hey, Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?" Everybody knows love will drive you crazy - it's defined as that even when it's good. To deny it, when someone turns it violently against another through adultery, is to deny our humanity.

You should try to be better people, and stop making excuses:

What leads to divorce, emotionally, can be the equivalent of death - that's a fact - and anyone who can't see that is either fooling themselves, a sociopath, or an otherwise emotional cripple.

And a make-up like that is probably what leads someone to commit such acts against the person who loves them most in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned, you defenders of Tiger are just practising your excuses for your own betrayals of someone else later.

But remember, as you try to intellectualize the uncontrollable: you're playing with fire.

1. Dr. Althouse's comment that what Ms. Nordegren did was ugly does not logically imply that Mr. Wood's actions were *not* ugly nor that she approves of them, as many seem to think. Also, just because something is "human" doesn't mean that it cannot be "criminal". The two are not mutually exclusive. Is an action a crime only if it is inexplicable? Are we to base our legal system on empathy rather than justice? We seem to be moving that way, and many seem to approve.

He cheated massively and got caught. Fine - it's a crime to hit him with a golf club. Doesn't meant he didn't have it coming, and didn't deserve it.

I still feel bad for Tiger. Dude's a pimp. I respect that. We just love to hate though. Hate on his downfall. I don't care if he let himself be marketed as a good guy. Fuck that. He was playing everyone, and it worked. I respect that.

"Dude's a pimp. I respect that. We just love to hate though. Hate on his downfall. I don't care if he let himself be marketed as a good guy. Fuck that. He was playing everyone, and it worked. I respect that."

"Are we to base our legal system on empathy rather than justice? We seem to be moving that way, and many seem to approve."

I hope you don't mean me, here, because (along with my previously stated arguments) there's also a first cause rule I'm working from - if Tiger hadn't set all this in motion, messing with Elin's head, Elin wouldn't have had reason to even consider hitting him.

And how do you define "justice"? Does your definition acknowledge the anti-violence fetish some of you live with - as being a fetish? A fetish born from empathy with anyone who's been hit and didn't like it - whether they deserved it or not?